from the assuming-you-didn't-want-to-see-that-movie-when-it-was-released dept

With Netflix caving in to Warner Bros. and agreeing to delay offering DVDs for 28 days after release in order to get movies to stream online, it certainly pissed off a bunch of Netflix subscribers. But, you've apparently got it all wrong. A Netflix exec is now trying to explain how the deal is pro-customer because it will keep demand down for the DVDs, meaning that when they finally do come out, you may have a better chance to rent them. Seriously:

The most practical reason is that the savings derived from this deal enable us to be in stock completely on day 29. Remember that we're a subscription service and the way that you manage the economics of a subscription service is to manage the demand of any disc, depending on the economics of the disc. In the case of the most expensive disc, which in this case is a Warner Bros. disc, purchased through a 3rd party, those discs were out of stock for far longer than 29 days for most Netflix subscribers.

So what were able to is create a deal with them that gave them a little open running room in terms of creating a sell-through window ahead of rental, for us, and hopefully that they'll find enough value in that it'll extend to other retailers and other studios will take note and it'll extend across other studios as well. The net savings derived from technically creating a better customer experience have been redeployed in additional streaming content for all customers.

I'm still trying to parse this, but it really does sound like he's saying that Netflix couldn't handle the demand for new releases before, so by getting rid of them entirely, it may be able to handle them on the 29th day, since fewer people will care about renting that movie then. Now, you could claim that's a better customer experience if you ignore the 28 days in which no one on Netflix can rent the movie (though they can get it elsewhere). But if you realize that you're now taking away the ability to serve all of your customers for nearly a month at the point when their demand is likely to be the highest... well, that doesn't seem very customer friendly at all.

from the this-is-a-mistake dept

While not a huge surprise, it's worth discussing just how bad an idea it was for Warner Bros. Studios to get Netflix to delay renting DVDs of its movies for 28 days in order to offer up more streaming content. To recap, the very, very, very confused movie studios seem to think that the way to deal with increasing competition is to just add more windows to releases -- and one way to do that is to delay when you can rent a movie. In the studios' incredibly short-sighted thinking, they believe this will make more people buy DVDs -- the one area of the movie business that has been on the decline of late. At the same time, the studios have been pissed off at Netflix for routing around them and getting rights to stream movies from Starz, and as such, have been denying requests to stream more movies.

So, the compromise is getting Netflix to delay the rentals in exchange for more streaming content.

It's hard to express just how bad an idea this is for Warner Bros., and how far out of touch with their customers they must be to think this makes any sense from a business standpoint. What they are saying is that they are not going to give in to customer demand and offer them what they want, but actually make it more difficult, more annoying and more confusing for them to get what they want -- and (at the same time!) screwing up basic marketing plans as well. Now, when movies are released on DVD and the large group of people who prefers renting to buying goes online to their Netflix account to do so, they won't be able to. Four weeks later, they'll be looking for something else. And, for those who simply want to see it right away, they're now more likely to get it in an unauthorized manner.

Under what set of logic would it ever make sense to give the customer less of what they want in an era when increased competition from other sources is causing them to already wonder if they should buy your product?

from the it-ain't-a-purchase-if-you-don't-own-it dept

Lots of folks have sent in various versions of Amazon's hyped up press release about how it sold more ebooks on Christmas than physical books. While this ought to make some publishers reconsider their hatred of ebooks, there are two points that make this rather meaningless. First, how many physical books are usually sold on Amazon on Christmas day? My guess is not very many. Books are purchased before Christmas day. However, I'm sure plenty of people did get new Kindles on Christmas, and quite a few then went and "purchased" an ebook or two to test it out.

But, again, since this is the Kindle we're talking about, shouldn't Amazon make the distinction between purchased and rented? When someone buys a physical book from Amazon, they then own that book and can do pretty much what they want with it, including reselling it or giving it away. When they "purchase" an ebook from Amazon, that's not the case at all. They're quite limited in what they can do with it. They can't resell it. They can't share it with a friend (unless they give up their entire Kindle and all the books on it). And, of course, Amazon can make the ebook disappear at will -- though, it insists it will never do this again. Even though it can. So, congrats to Amazon, for renting more books on a day when such rentals are to be expected and when physical book sales are probably at their very lowest.

from the not-what-they-said... dept

We've already been covering Redbox's legal fight with a few movie studios who so hate the idea that Redbox is actually giving people something they want (legally) at a reasonable price (legally), that they want to kill it. The whole thing is so ridiculous that it's difficult to believe there's anyone out there defending the anti-Redbox studios' position (and, in fact, a couple of the other studios, with Paramount in the lead, have realized that it's smarter to partner with Redbox than to try to kill it). Yet, the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation (a non-profit with LA government connections) has put out a report claiming that Redbox kills jobs and harms the economy throughout Los Angeles (thanks to reader Valkor for sending this in). If you want, you can read the full report (pdf) -- but prepare to be amazed as what the report actually says is quite different than the press release headline.

Hidden within the report are claims that the industry will continue to grow nicely for the next decade and that alternative business models will develop that more than compensate for any loss of revenue from reduced rental prices. But that's not what the headline of the press release says. No, it reads:

Study says low-cost DVD rentals could lead to $1 billion, 9,280 jobs lost

But, deep in the actual report? Why, it says the following:

The shift to digital delivery will provide new revenue streams for the industry and new opportunities... Increased availability of all types of digital content and media have changed lifestyles and will continue to contribute to demand for video products. Indeed, SNL Kagan forecasts continuing growth in overall industry revenues as alternative streams compensate for this loss of revenue. In total, SNL Kagan projects an increase in distributor revenues from all sources worldwide from $51.3 billion in 2008 to $67.6 billion in 2017. While the composition of these revenues will clearly change, distributors will continue to experience revenue growth into the next decade.

So how does it get from that to the headline? Well, it assumes that Redbox is decreasing revenue from traditional rental, and seems to assume that these other alternative revenue streams are not influenced by Redbox or other forms of distribution that are more convenient and cheaper and attract a new or different audience -- which seems like a dubious assumption. Another way of looking at this: it's as if the horse and buggy industry put out a report just as automobiles were coming to market that said, yes, the auto industry will be huge and will create millions of new jobs, but because a much smaller number of jobs are lost due to downsizing the carriage market, we can release a report saying that the auto industry is "killing jobs." Logically, that's ridiculous.

On top of that, it makes some odd assumptions throughout the report, continually throwing out the idea that Redbox itself might increase the revenue for the industry, repeatedly suggesting that the industry is mature and if there were a way to get more revenue out of it, it would have already been discovered. Of course, considering that the market has long been dominated by a single player, not prone to innovating, and with close ties to studios that have limited some of how it could act -- that assumption is highly suspect. In fact, the very reason that Redbox has been so popular (and which also explains the rise of Netflix) has been consumer dissatisfaction with the old Blockbuster model, which was designed to squeeze consumers.

To the authors' credit, they do try to be fair on other numbers and assumptions, recognizing that effects go in multiple directions and that there are other issues at play, but the press release headline claiming that Redbox costs the industry a billion dollars and nearly 10,000 jobs, when the actual report claims that revenue is increasing and will continue to do so, just seems hard to swallow. Unfortunately, every single press report covering this study seems to only take the PR headline from the report and repeat it, without anyone appearing to have read the part of the report that says the exact opposite of what the headline claims.

from the seriously dept

Sometimes you just shake your head at ideas that come out of some executives that are just so incredibly dumb, it makes you wonder how anyone ever took them seriously. There have been some hints about this latest one, though. Just last week, in discussing the latest IP Colloquium podcast, we noted (with surprise) that Paramount's top lawyer thought the solution to business model problems in the entertainment industry was "more windows." Windows, of course, are the different time periods in which movies are released solely for different formats/media. So, it starts with the theater (the first window), followed by video, pay per view, cable and network TV -- each representing another window, and another chance to squeeze more money out of the same content.

Yet, with the industry facing some challenges, rather than actually looking at what users want, its top brains seem to think that the answer is more windows. It's hard to explain how incredibly short-sighted this is, because it's so monumentally backwards that it makes you wonder what they're thinking. At best, my guess is that the execs are extrapolating out in the simplest form that with the launch of each "window" they make more money, so the way to make even more money must be to offer more windows. Of course, this assumes two rather basic things that are totally wrong. One, is that these windows won't piss off users and two, that those users have no alternatives.

But, apparently not realizing that, these execs have hit upon a few different attempts to add more windows. First, they've been pushing for the permission to break your TV or DVR with selectable output control barring your ability to tape movies. This way, they can create a new "window" of movies on TV that you can't record, that they can offer before the movies even get out on video. Of course, this will (a) piss people off and (b) drive them to more piracy. Brilliant.

The other attempt, is to get video rental places to stop renting movies when the DVDs first come out. The LA Times had an entire article explaining this plan, whereby the studios would force all rental services, including Netflix and Blockbuster to not rent certain films -- but only offer them for sale. The idea (short-sighted as it is), is that this would somehow force people to buy more DVDs, which gives the studios a higher margin than rentals. We actually heard about this earlier this year with the contract terms that the studios tried to put on Redbox, but it's apparently trying to do the same with Netflix and Blockbuster as well.

This idea is so bad that even the LA Times, who tends to support its hometown industry more often than go against it, put out a separate opinion piece with the original article, calling this new idea "crazy" and "absurd."

In the meantime, what do customers actually want? Well, there's pretty good evidence they prefer choice not being limited by windows. They've been clamoring for so-called "day-and-date" release, whereby all these windows are compressed. If you don't want to see a movie in the theater, why not be able to get the DVD? It's as if the studios don't realize that part of what they're selling is the social experience of "going out" to the theater. Even better, if the DVD comes out at the same time as the theater version of the film, less marketing money needs to be spent to sell more DVDs, and you can do nice tie-ins, like having the ability to buy the DVD as you walk out of the theater. Giving people more value and more choice is what the market is asking for.

Instead, Hollywood execs are trying to take away choice and limit value. Incredible.

from the shooting-the-foot dept

Hollywood really never learns, does it? Following 20th Century Fox's decision to try to stop Redbox from getting movies to rent via its kiosks (to which Redbox has responded by suing Fox), Warner Bros. has joined in as well, but isn't just trying to stop Redbox, but Netflix, too. It wants to force both companies not to rent DVDs until a month after the DVDs are actually released... unless the companies agree to share revenue from the rentals.

There's basically no legal basis for this move, which would only serve to piss off consumers (yet again). These companies are free to buy the DVDs and rent them out, but the studios want a cut of every rental. It's sort of like video game makes demanding a cut of every used game sale, or an artist demanding a cut every time a piece of his artwork is sold. It's entitlement society all over again. Nothing should happen without the original company getting paid. What they don't realize is how this limits them. Netflix and Redbox become less interested in promoting Warner Bros.' movies, because they're now a lot more expensive to those companies. Instead, Hollywood is handing incentives over to these companies to promote other films that don't demand their tithe.

from the not-a-good-idea dept

It was just a few days ago that Mark Cuban was singing the praises of Redbox as the perfect model for movie distribution, claiming that the movie studios loved it, because they pay the studios a minimum guarantee with no returns. Cuban claims that this is a no-risk deal for studios who get pure incremental revenue. That didn't read right to me, because it was just a few months ago that it seemed like Universal Studios was doing everything it possibly could to kill Redbox. And, now, Mark alerts us to the news that 20th Century Fox is also demanding wholesellers not sell to Redbox. In fact, the article notes that Redbox only has a deal with Sony. It purchases all the movies from other studios through wholesale middlemen -- which seems to contradict Cuban's claims. Either way, this is a story of the movie studios letting their own greed interfere with innovation. These movies are being legally purchased. It's difficult to see how the studios have any leg to stand on in preventing Redbox from using their movies in its service. Isn't there a First Sale right somewhere?

from the add-value,-not-diminish-it... dept

I'm always amazed when companies think that they can take features away from users and then charge more for re-accessing those features. Taking features away from people to charge them for them almost never works. It just pisses off people who quickly go looking for alternatives. The latest company getting set to discover this for themselves appears to be 20th Century Fox studios, who wants to remove all the special features from rental DVDs in the hopes that people will buy those DVDs instead. Of course, what might happen is that fewer people rent their movies and fewer people buy the movies. I'm a fan of various DVD extras -- and it's part of the reason why I rent movies. If a DVD doesn't have them, I'm a lot less likely to rent the film -- and I'm unlikely to buy a DVD if I haven't first seen it as a rental. So, for me, Fox's strategy will certainly backfire, and I'd imagine the same is true for many others as well.

In response to a question regarding the small catalog of Movielink, Blockbuster's digital download service, Reyes responded, "When was the last time you watched 10,000 movies, you know? I don't care how many movies are available to me. As my personal taste as a customer, I want to watch the new stuff so whether we have 10,000 movies or 200 movies it doesn't matter if I don't want to see any of the movies that we have." The point of the long tail is not to ignore the hits, but to make available more. While Reyes's quixotic opinion may appease viewers with very limited tastes, when distribution and content creation is exceedingly cheap, it makes no sense to limit content. In his original article on the concept, Anderson noted that one-fifth of Netflix rentals are outside the top 3,000 movies. Clearly, a sizable minority of movie-watchers want to see films outside Movielink's inventory that "is heavily weighted toward newer releases and mainstream staple titles."

from the illegal-tying? dept

A guy in Kansas is suing Time Warner Cable for its practice of requiring customers to "rent" their cable modem boxes. He claims that this is an illegal "tying" arrangement, since most subscribers would probably prefer to just own their modem boxes outright. Modem Box rentals have always been something of a scam. It's just a way to charge more for the monthly service, without having to include this extra "cost" in the price that they advertise to consumers. The guy is even noting that this requirement of renting a specific cable modem harkens back to when AT&T required you to rent your telephone from them. The courts struck that down, so hopefully they'll strike down this practice as well.